- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1265 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S SNN PROPERTIES (LLP) A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.3761/60, 61/2 & 63, RAJ LAKE VIEW, N. S. PALYA MAIN ROAD, B. T. M. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560 076, RERPESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SHAH SANJAY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAGAR. G NAHAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O K. M. KRISHNA REDDY, 2. KUM. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/O K M KRISHNA REDDY, 3. KUM. BHAVANI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O K. M. KRISHNA REDDY, 4. KUM GEETHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 D/O K. M. KRISHNA REDDY, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURAHOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN-560102. 5. K. M. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O H. MUNIYAPA 6. K. M. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O H MUNIYAPPA 7. SRI. V. PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O K VENKATASWAMY 8. SRI. M. KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O H. MUNIYAPA 9. KUM. PAVITRA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O M. KANTHARAJU 10. ABHILASH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O M. KANTHARAJU RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT KOODLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-560102. 11. SRI. K. H. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 RESIDING AT NO.165, 4TH MAIN, 4TH PHASE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BANGALORE -560 079. 12. SRI B. S. SOMASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, NO.2 NEW TIMBER LAYOUT RAGAHVENDRANAGARA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE -560 026. 13. SRI. N. MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O NANJUNDAPPA, NO.11, 2ND MAIN, ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE -560 040. 14. SRI. G. BYRESH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMAPPA, NO.631, 10TH G MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR VI BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 010. 15. SMT. JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, D/O OF H. MUNIYAPPA, W/O NARASIMHA REDDY, NO.286/1, BOMMANAHALLI, BEGUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 058. 16. SMT. HAMSA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, D/O H .MUNIYAPPA, W/O JAGADISH, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 NO.710, SOMASUNDRAPALYA, NEAR KCDC MADIVALA POST, BANGALORE-560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY FOR R1-R4., ADVOCATE; R5, R7, R8 TO R10 AND R13 SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.9.2016 VIDE ANNEX-D [PASSED IN FDP NO.28/2006 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANEKAL, BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "a) Call for records. b) [Deleted as per order dated 14/11/2024] c) Allow I.A.No.9 (Impleading Application dated 18/09/2015) filed by the Petitioner and grant an opportunity to the Petitioner to come on record as Respondent in FDP No.28/2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, Bangalore. ca) Quash and set aside the entire proceedings in FDP No.28/2006, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 subsequent to the order dated 27/09/2016, subject to modification of the final decree as per Order dated 12/08/2017 passed in RA 5081/2017, d) Grant such other consequential and further relief/s as may be deemed fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Sagar G. Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the purchaser of the 5 (five) properties during the pendency of the suit. The pendency of the suit was not within his knowledge while making the purchase. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know that the plaintiffs, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 initiated final decree proceedings in FDP.No.28/2006. Hence, the petitioner filed an application in IA.No.9 seeking for impleadment. The said application is still pending. It is further submitted that the trial Court accepted the Court Commissioner's report without considering the petitioner's application filed for impleadment in the said FDP and the said order came to be challenged in this writ petition. It is also submitted that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 this Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 stayed all further proceedings in FDP No.28/2006 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal. Pending proceedings in the FDP, respondent Nos.1 to 4 got the final decree drawn and got the same registered before the jurisdictional Sub-registrar on 21.11.2016. The same was also behind the back of the petitioner. It is contented that as soon as the registration of the final decree was came to the knowledge of the petitioner, petitioner filed RA.No.5081/2017 challenging the final decree in FDP.No.28/2006 and in the said appeal, the petitioner has compromised the dispute with respondent Nos.1 to 4. When things stood thus, children of respondent No.5 filed an application in IA.No.12 seeking for their share in the FDP.No.28/2006 alleging that they are entitled to the share and the trial Court allotted a share of 3/10 in respect of the suit schedule properties. The said order of the trial Court dated 24.08.2018 was passed despite there being an interim order of this Court in the present petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 The said order was passed without filing an application to bring LRs of respondent No.5 on record and the said order was passed without even issuing notice to the petitioner whose application for impleadment was pending and even without issuing notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 who are the decree holders. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 24.08.2018. 3. Sri.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.625/1995 and the said suit was decreed in their favour and later in the RA.No.5081/2017 filed by the petitioner herein, they have compromised the dispute between the petitioner with respect to the five items of the suit schedule properties which he has purchased from them. It is submitted that he has no objection to allow the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel representing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 respondent Nos.1 to 4. There is no representation for other respondents, though they are served. 5. The petitioner claiming to be the purchaser of 5 items of the suit schedule property, filed this petition seeking to quash and set aside entire proceedings in FDP.No.28/2006, subsequent to order dated 27.09.2016, subject to modification of final decree proceedings as per order dated 12.08.2017 passed in RA.No.5081/2017. 6. The undisputed facts are that respondent Nos.1 to 4, decree holders in O.S.No.625/1995 filed FDP.No.28/2006. In the said proceedings the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.9 seeking for impleadment on the ground that he was not arraigned as a party in the suit and he has purchased 5 items of the suit schedule property. The said application filed by the petitioner was kept pending. The Trial Court accepted the Court Commissioner's report and drawn the final decree proceedings. The said final decree came to be registered - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 on 21.11.2016. The said final decree proceedings were challenged by the petitioner in RA.No.5081/2017. In the said appeal the petitioner herein and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein who are the plaintiff-decree holders settled the dispute by way of compromise and the said appeal came to be disposed of on 12.08.2017. In the said compromise 5 items of the properties which were purchased by the petitioner were deleted from the final decree. In other words, final decree proceedings were closed. The records indicate that some persons claiming to be legal heirs of the respondent No.5, K.M.Venkataswamy Reddy filed an application seeking their share as per the original judgment and decree in FDP.No.28/2006 and the Trial Court considered the said application and allowed the same by allotting shares of 3/10th share of the suit schedule property. This Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 has stayed all further proceedings in FDP.No.28/2006 and the said order came to be extended from time to time. Records would indicate that the Trial Court has allowed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 application I.A.No.12 filed by, claiming to be legal heirs of the respondent No.5, during the operation of the interim order of this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 submit that in the preliminary decree no share has been allotted to the respondent No.5. Hence, question of allotting share under the application in I.A.No.12 would not arise. The said fact cannot be gone into in the present writ petition for the simple reason that the applicants in I.A.No.12 are not parties in the present proceedings. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not forthcoming from the records whether the respondent No.5, K.M.Venkataswamy Reddy is dead or alive and it is also contended that without filing an application to come on record, the person alleged to be claiming as legal heirs of the respondent No.5 filed an application in I.A.No.12 and the said application was allowed during the operation of the interim order by this - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 Court. In my considered view that the Trial Court has committed grave error in allowing the said application under the impugned order dated 24.08.2018. 9. The prayer of the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings and to reject I.A.No.12 cannot be considered as the applicants in I.A.No.12 are not parties in the present petition. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) Order dated 24.08.2018 passed in FDP.No.28/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal is set aside. iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the petitioner's application No.9 for impleadment and thereafter consider I.A.No.12 claimed to be filed by legal heirs of respondent No.5 K.M.Venkataswamy Reddy in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22465 WP No. 1265 of 2017 accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 to 4. iv) It is made clear that the Trial Court shall strictly adhere to the prayer sought in I.A.No.12 and it cannot go beyond the same. v) Registry is directed to transmit back the Trial Court Records. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21